259 réponses à ce sujet

[BobbyDylan]

No, OP! Please respect me!!!! Please, I need your respect!!!1!!!!one!!!eleven!!!!!1

[Cyberstrike nTo]

babachewie wrote...

Bioware has some of the worst fans. It's like walking through a daycare of screaming babies. Not just here either. Facebook, and Twitter as well.

Trust me there are worse fandoms out there and I know a few make that makes Bioware's worse fans look like nice and reasonable.

[Gwtheyrn]

Well, OP, that's okay. I never had any for you in the first place.

[Leem_0001]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...
Yeah, sorry, your 3 little points there - they don't make a lot of sense.

You can find them on here or on the web, but prior to release Bioware promised (through intereviews and blogs etc, you can find every one of them for yourself):
* That the choices we made in the previous 2 games would effect the endings of ME3 in drastically different ways.
* We were promised 16 different endings.
* We were promised it would not simply be an A,B,C ending (red, blue, green anyone?)
* We were promised they would not pull a Lost and leave us with more questions than answers.

So that is point 1 - broken promises.

I disagree, I've not seen a single quote that "previous 2 games would effect the endings of ME3" I've seen lots of quotes that the choice affect the journey, colour the experience. Which it does. Even the rachni quote was something along the lines of "The Rachni presents on earth will have a major impact" and that is true as they are there under reaper control regardless of your choice. Apparently there are 16 different endings depending on your EMS so its not just ABC, apparently earth gets destroyed in low ems scenarios and synthsis is unavailable

Leem_0001 wrote...
Next up, for a game developer who values story telling above all else, they have broken basic story telling rules by introuducing a new major antagonist (Starchild) in the last 10 minutes of the series. There is a reason this is a basic rule of story telling, it is jarring, and takes the reader/gamer out of the experience.. Read any, ANY, book on the craft of storytelling - I challange you to do that. You will see I am right.

So point 2 - poor storytelling.

Thats rubbish, its used all the time, and also used in ME1 with Vigil, look at Assains Creed 2 occurance in a popular video game series that suposidly values story. It was a mechanism to present the player infomation
1.Reaper motives
2.Crucible controls

Lets also remeber this only the last 10 minutes of shepards story not the series

Leem_0001 wrote...
Next they used the same endings pretty much and just swapped the colour of the explosions. How can you be okay with this? All three games were building to this point and this is the closure we got, a colour pallet swap?
Point 3 - lazy ending

The colour doesn't matter its the meaning behind it, the choice and the end of the reaper war which I thought adequately conveyed

Leem_0001 wrote...
Then there is the broken lore - Arrival states that if a Relay is destroyed,

When hit by an asteroid...

Leem_0001 wrote...
Also, why does Shep blindly accept this Starchilds logic? He has a track history of questioning everything and not being bullied into things, no matter how desperate things seem.

My Sheppard questioned it, but seriously Shepard isn't in any bargaining position and is under direct orders of hacket to fire the crucible under any circumstances, Shepard can even question this order when given it earlier in the game.

Leem_0001 wrote...
Also, why is Joker suddenly on the run, escaping from a mass relay blast, with my crew magically on board (they were in London with me). Did he bail? And consider the planet they crashed on - its not in our solar system, so he MUST have made a jump through the relay - but why did he go, pick up the squad, and jump through the relay? He had NO WAY OF KNOWING that they were going to blow. It makes no sense.

We view most of the ending from Shepards point of view, stuff happens we are not privvy to, TBH I was very relieved they survived Harbingers blast and get live hapily ever after

Leem_0001 wrote...
And if the cruicible was made by cycles before us, each adding their own bit to it, then why is a catalyst, that no one knows about, required to fire it? Shep was the first to meet Starchild, yet he claims to be the catalyst. But the other cycles that built this thing, why would they build a weapon that needed a catalyst that they didn't know about to fire? IT MAKES NO SENSE AND IS LAZY AND RUSHED.
Point 4 - logically incompetent (and does not follow its own lore).

Key point Soverign made on Virmire is that our technology, prothean technology and the cycles before us are guided in their technological development by the reapers and the Mass relays(a good reason to be rid IMO). Makes perfect sense just getting the idea it went over your head.

Leem_0001 wrote...
And another point is the theme of Mass Effect has always been unity in the face of diversity. The whole point of the series is to get everyone on the same side, which we pretty much achieve in ME3. EVEN AI in the Geth and EDI. AI are our friends. So the theme is that no matter our differences, we can all live together. This is such an important theme to have as well, especially in todays world. All of this was abandoned in the last 5 minutes and the theme was somehow changed to Organics VS AI -

No your missing the point again, that is the Reapers motives which is a separate issue to the game theme, in fact nothing typifies the theme more than the Synthsis option allowing the entire galaxy Synthetic and organic to unite together.

Leem_0001 wrote...
Destroy all AI including those who were helping you (EDI and GETH) or control them. Since when has control of any kind of life been a theme in ME? It hasn't.
Point 5 - Switches it's main theme in the last 5 minutes.

Destroy/Control IMO are both Renagade options, Destroy is basically genocide which you get the same choice in ME1 with the Rachni or Control which is effectively placing shackles on them and yes you can play the game as very anti AI shepard that agrees with the Illusive man for the most part 

So thats 5 points debunked

Nope, sorry, I disagree totally - you are way out with what you are saying. And debunked nothing. I'll  go through them:

Promises
There have been specific references, dating back to ME1, that all these choices would affect the endings of the game. And even taking into account the destroyed earth endings, we still do not have 16. Count them and see for yourself. So you debunked nothing. And what of Casey's comments of 'an A, B, C' ending. Clearly what we got with the coloured choices we were given. It is in direct contrast. You can say that its about what the endings imply etc etc, but given that they break from lore and themes (which I will get to) then the only questions posed are ones that relate to the plot holes. And the Rachni quote was that the choice you made in ME1 would greatly effect ME3. It doesnt as regardless of your choice in ME1, the Rachni are still around in ME3. Bioware have since issued a statement confirming this. Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, so you are being very selective with your memory there.

Story telling
No, it isn't rubbish at all, you are being dismissive over something you clearly don't understand. I haven't played the AC series after AC2, and I didn't rate the story so much, those game was more about the gameplay and visuals. Bioware MARKET themselves as storytellers. We have followed the story for 3 games and, in the last 10 minutes, we were introduced to a new antagonist, the overall antagonist, with no explination of what it was really. It was bad storytelling. Again, I ask you, dare you, read any book on good storytelling. The AC series was never on par with ME in this regard. And as for the Vigil thing - 2 points. We knew the ship Saren was on was controlling him before Vigil, so we knew it was a greater enemy, we just didn't know what. It wasn't sprang on us with 5 minutes to go. AND it was the first game of a trilogy, not the conclusion, where questions are supposed to be answered, not thrown up. And ME was always supposed to be a contained story - Shepard and the Reapers - with any others just taking place in the same universe. That was stated way back since after ME1 was released. Check it out for yourself.

And as for you being happy with thinking about the meaining behind the choices given - if you are happy with that fine. But it DOES go against the games themes (I'll get to that) and the fact they have used the same footage but changed the colour IS a cheap tactic. Seriously. The end to this phenominal series and we get a colour pallet swap? Didn't that stop happening after the Mortal Kombat 2? And the choices were not adequatley conveyed. The logistics of how they were carried out were non existant, and none of them fit with the themes.

Lazy ending
And again, what difference does the asteroid make? Its the energy within the relay that causes the solar systems destruction. When an asteroid hits something and causes great devistation it is because of the velocity etc. Fine, but the velocity of the asteroid against a relay without the dark energy within would not cause any reaction powerful enough to destroy a solar system. Its the dark energy, and as far as we were told by star child, all the endings unleashed the same. If a neuclear device is detonated by remote or by something crashing into it, its explosive power remains unchanged. Same thing.

And I'm sorry but Shep gives up and blindly picks one of the 3. He is under orders to fire it but now he knows what will happen when it is fired. When has Shep ever had a problem going against an order if he thinks it is the right thing to do?

Really, thats it, that is your debunk? Because Shep doesn't see it we shouldn't either? Just accept there is stuff we are not privv to? Jesus Christ man, that isn't even a debunk, its just you being happy when given something sub-par. If we only see anything from Shep's point of view, why did we even see Joker crash land at all? Clearly this point remains un-debunked.

Logically incompitent
But we were told that the other cycles developed this, nothing to do with the reapers. I ask again, who did they know about the catalyst? And, again, why would they create a weapon that needs one, but they have no idea what it is? The VI says that each cycle has added to it, added their own part to it, but why would they all included for this catalyst? THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS, so how could they incorporate it into their design??? It makes no sense, and while you can claim all you want it went over peoples heads, simple fact is that you are filling in gaps in logic and explanation with your own head canon (which makes no sense) and expecting it to be right. You are settling for sub par rubbish.

Themes
No, YOU are missing the point again. How can FORCING organics and synthestics be seen as the right thing to do? That is playing God, when has ME ever been about that? Answer - never. Synthesis removes all diversity and mashes everyone together as one abomination, regardless of if they wanted it. I say again, the theme has always been about unity inspite of diversity (even embracing diversity). This is saying that unity can only be achieved if diversity is removed. So it is NOT in keeping with the theme. It seems the main theme of the game went over your head and you totally missed the point.

So that is 5 points, very much still valid, and in no way even remotely debunked. I would say 'nice try though' but, honestly, it wasnt. 

[Kyrick]

Commander Shepard the Grey Warden wrote...

I like the endings. Now let's see if we can get through this forum without me being told how my children are going to die, I'm the next Hitler, and you're all going to come to my house and burn me alive. (The point to this forum is that while people who disliked the endings say they feel alienated, what they don't realize is that they themselves are committing the exact same crime by trying to bully people who do like the ending.)

Go ahead and find those quotes where people say those things to you.  More exaggeration and hyperbole in a lame attempt to prove your point.  What I WILL call you is utterly ignorant of literary structure and narrative mechanics.  Because that's not in question.  I teach that stuff for a living and I can categorically tell you that ANYbody who claims that the endings were in any fashion decent examples of those are without knowledge of either of those two categories of knowledge.  Further, I will say that if you 'like' the endings, you don't understand what qualities you're supposed to judge endings on when talking about emotional satisfaction.

I suspect that you're like many of those who claim that the endings are enjoyable.  At the end of the day, when you're done with your trolling, you'll have no clue.  Luckily for you, you want no clue and thus demonstrate the truth of the maxim, "Ignorance is bliss".

[CaptainZaysh]

Me too.

[MattFini]

Crap. How am I supposed to sleep at night now, knowing that some people on BSN have lost respect for the community?

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

OP a loyal fan would push for the best possible product not roll over and accept crap because it come from Bioware. Especially when the problem can be fixed through DLC.

[rachellouise]

I like the endings

[Gwtheyrn]

rachellouise wrote...

I like the endings

I'm happy for you.

Now go jump off a cliff. (just kidding)

[Leem_0001]

rachellouise wrote...

I like the endings

Thats great - then you have everything you need already on the disk.

If they fixed the endings with DLC (and I mean actually fix what is wrong with them), then all fans would be happy.

[jules_vern18]

Every time I've seen someone say they liked the endings anywhere on these forums, I've only ever seen people say "I'm happy for you OP" or something similar. We might disagree, but calling you Hitler?

Melodrama much?

[rachellouise]

Since when does liking something mean not liking/wanting anything more added? :/

[incinerator950]

I've never had respect for the community. I have respect for individuals who still have a shred of common sense and humor despite the state of the forum trash. There are a lot of reasons why even the Fallout Community looks down on people here, and I've met /b/tards who were better.

[Harorrd]

The People who like the ending are to stupid to comprehend what actually happen, or they have no ethical seance of right and wrong.

[GiarcYekrub]

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...

[quote]GiarcYekrub wrote...

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Yeah, sorry, your 3 little points there - they don't make a lot of sense.

You can find them on here or on the web, but prior to release Bioware promised (through intereviews and blogs etc, you can find every one of them for yourself):
* That the choices we made in the previous 2 games would effect the endings of ME3 in drastically different ways.
* We were promised 16 different endings.
* We were promised it would not simply be an A,B,C ending (red, blue, green anyone?)
* We were promised they would not pull a Lost and leave us with more questions than answers.

So that is point 1 - broken promises.
[/quote]
I disagree, I've not seen a single quote that "previous 2 games would effect the endings of ME3" I've seen lots of quotes that the choice affect the journey, colour the experience. Which it does. Even the rachni quote was something along the lines of "The Rachni presents on earth will have a major impact" and that is true as they are there under reaper control regardless of your choice. Apparently there are 16 different endings depending on your EMS so its not just ABC, apparently earth gets destroyed in low ems scenarios and synthsis is unavailable

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Next up, for a game developer who values story telling above all else, they have broken basic story telling rules by introuducing a new major antagonist (Starchild) in the last 10 minutes of the series. There is a reason this is a basic rule of story telling, it is jarring, and takes the reader/gamer out of the experience.. Read any, ANY, book on the craft of storytelling - I challange you to do that. You will see I am right.

So point 2 - poor storytelling.
[/quote]
Thats rubbish, its used all the time, and also used in ME1 with Vigil, look at Assains Creed 2 occurance in a popular video game series that suposidly values story. It was a mechanism to present the player infomation
1.Reaper motives
2.Crucible controls

Lets also remeber this only the last 10 minutes of shepards story not the series

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Next they used the same endings pretty much and just swapped the colour of the explosions. How can you be okay with this? All three games were building to this point and this is the closure we got, a colour pallet swap?
Point 3 - lazy ending
[/quote]
The colour doesn't matter its the meaning behind it, the choice and the end of the reaper war which I thought adequately conveyed
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Then there is the broken lore - Arrival states that if a Relay is destroyed,
[/quote]
When hit by an asteroid...
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Also, why does Shep blindly accept this Starchilds logic? He has a track history of questioning everything and not being bullied into things, no matter how desperate things seem.
[/quote]
My Sheppard questioned it, but seriously Shepard isn't in any bargaining position and is under direct orders of hacket to fire the crucible under any circumstances, Shepard can even question this order when given it earlier in the game.
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Also, why is Joker suddenly on the run, escaping from a mass relay blast, with my crew magically on board (they were in London with me). Did he bail? And consider the planet they crashed on - its not in our solar system, so he MUST have made a jump through the relay - but why did he go, pick up the squad, and jump through the relay? He had NO WAY OF KNOWING that they were going to blow. It makes no sense.
[/quote]
We view most of the ending from Shepards point of view, stuff happens we are not privvy to, TBH I was very relieved they survived Harbingers blast and get live hapily ever after
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
And if the cruicible was made by cycles before us, each adding their own bit to it, then why is a catalyst, that no one knows about, required to fire it? Shep was the first to meet Starchild, yet he claims to be the catalyst. But the other cycles that built this thing, why would they build a weapon that needed a catalyst that they didn't know about to fire? IT MAKES NO SENSE AND IS LAZY AND RUSHED.
Point 4 - logically incompetent (and does not follow its own lore).
[/quote]
Key point Soverign made on Virmire is that our technology, prothean technology and the cycles before us are guided in their technological development by the reapers and the Mass relays(a good reason to be rid IMO). Makes perfect sense just getting the idea it went over your head.
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
And another point is the theme of Mass Effect has always been unity in the face of diversity. The whole point of the series is to get everyone on the same side, which we pretty much achieve in ME3. EVEN AI in the Geth and EDI. AI are our friends. So the theme is that no matter our differences, we can all live together. This is such an important theme to have as well, especially in todays world. All of this was abandoned in the last 5 minutes and the theme was somehow changed to Organics VS AI -
[/quote]
No your missing the point again, that is the Reapers motives which is a separate issue to the game theme, in fact nothing typifies the theme more than the Synthsis option allowing the entire galaxy Synthetic and organic to unite together.
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Destroy all AI including those who were helping you (EDI and GETH) or control them. Since when has control of any kind of life been a theme in ME? It hasn't.
Point 5 - Switches it's main theme in the last 5 minutes.
[/quote]
Destroy/Control IMO are both Renagade options, Destroy is basically genocide which you get the same choice in ME1 with the Rachni or Control which is effectively placing shackles on them and yes you can play the game as very anti AI shepard that agrees with the Illusive man for the most part 

So thats 5 points debunked

[/quote]

Nope, sorry, I disagree totally - you are way out with what you are saying. And debunked nothing. I'll  go through them:

Promises
There have been specific references, dating back to ME1, that all these choices would affect the endings of the game. And even taking into account the destroyed earth endings, we still do not have 16. Count them and see for yourself. So you debunked nothing. And what of Casey's comments of 'an A, B, C' ending. Clearly what we got with the coloured choices we were given. It is in direct contrast. You can say that its about what the endings imply etc etc, but given that they break from lore and themes (which I will get to) then the only questions posed are ones that relate to the plot holes. And the Rachni quote was that the choice you made in ME1 would greatly effect ME3. It doesnt as regardless of your choice in ME1, the Rachni are still around in ME3. Bioware have since issued a statement confirming this. Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, so you are being very selective with your memory there.

Story telling
No, it isn't rubbish at all, you are being dismissive over something you clearly don't understand. I haven't played the AC series after AC2, and I didn't rate the story so much, those game was more about the gameplay and visuals. Bioware MARKET themselves as storytellers. We have followed the story for 3 games and, in the last 10 minutes, we were introduced to a new antagonist, the overall antagonist, with no explination of what it was really. It was bad storytelling. Again, I ask you, dare you, read any book on good storytelling. The AC series was never on par with ME in this regard. And as for the Vigil thing - 2 points. We knew the ship Saren was on was controlling him before Vigil, so we knew it was a greater enemy, we just didn't know what. It wasn't sprang on us with 5 minutes to go. AND it was the first game of a trilogy, not the conclusion, where questions are supposed to be answered, not thrown up. And ME was always supposed to be a contained story - Shepard and the Reapers - with any others just taking place in the same universe. That was stated way back since after ME1 was released. Check it out for yourself.

And as for you being happy with thinking about the meaining behind the choices given - if you are happy with that fine. But it DOES go against the games themes (I'll get to that) and the fact they have used the same footage but changed the colour IS a cheap tactic. Seriously. The end to this phenominal series and we get a colour pallet swap? Didn't that stop happening after the Mortal Kombat 2? And the choices were not adequatley conveyed. The logistics of how they were carried out were non existant, and none of them fit with the themes.

Lazy ending
And again, what difference does the asteroid make? Its the energy within the relay that causes the solar systems destruction. When an asteroid hits something and causes great devistation it is because of the velocity etc. Fine, but the velocity of the asteroid against a relay without the dark energy within would not cause any reaction powerful enough to destroy a solar system. Its the dark energy, and as far as we were told by star child, all the endings unleashed the same. If a neuclear device is detonated by remote or by something crashing into it, its explosive power remains unchanged. Same thing.

And I'm sorry but Shep gives up and blindly picks one of the 3. He is under orders to fire it but now he knows what will happen when it is fired. When has Shep ever had a problem going against an order if he thinks it is the right thing to do?

Really, thats it, that is your debunk? Because Shep doesn't see it we shouldn't either? Just accept there is stuff we are not privv to? Jesus Christ man, that isn't even a debunk, its just you being happy when given something sub-par. If we only see anything from Shep's point of view, why did we even see Joker crash land at all? Clearly this point remains un-debunked.

Logically incompitent
But we were told that the other cycles developed this, nothing to do with the reapers. I ask again, who did they know about the catalyst? And, again, why would they create a weapon that needs one, but they have no idea what it is? The VI says that each cycle has added to it, added their own part to it, but why would they all included for this catalyst? THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS, so how could they incorporate it into their design??? It makes no sense, and while you can claim all you want it went over peoples heads, simple fact is that you are filling in gaps in logic and explanation with your own head canon (which makes no sense) and expecting it to be right. You are settling for sub par rubbish.

Themes
No, YOU are missing the point again. How can FORCING organics and synthestics be seen as the right thing to do? That is playing God, when has ME ever been about that? Answer - never. Synthesis removes all diversity and mashes everyone together as one abomination, regardless of if they wanted it. I say again, the theme has always been about unity inspite of diversity (even embracing diversity). This is saying that unity can only be achieved if diversity is removed. So it is NOT in keeping with the theme. It seems the main theme of the game went over your head and you totally missed the point.

So that is 5 points, very much still valid, and in no way even remotely debunked. I would say 'nice try though' but, honestly, it wasnt. [/quote]

Your just regurgitating the same old drivel, you say I'm being selctive with memory but fail to provide any actual quotes with sources to prove your claims.


You say its an ABC ending...:
Synthsis
Destroy Shep Lives
Destroy Shep Dies
Destroy Earth Devastated
Destroy Earth Destroyed, No choice
Destroy Earth Destroyed, with choice
Control  Earth Devastated
Control  Earth Devastated

Add to that the multiple combinations of squadmates in the crash scene and I think we have exceeded 16... in fact let widen our window of the ending to the whole Earth section and you have Geth/Quarians, Wrex giving speaches, and a goodbye to every character that was on your squad that is still alive.

Well I think thats 5 points that  remain well truely debunked

[rachellouise]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Every time I've seen someone say they liked the endings anywhere on these forums, I've only ever seen people say "I'm happy for you OP" or something similar. We might disagree, but calling you Hitler?

Melodrama much?

It's pretty much how it's delivered. Plus the stuff that generally follows. Not everyone does it, but quite a number which keep reposting etc.

eg:

I'm happy for you.

I'm happy you are blissful in being ignorant.

[Leem_0001]

rachellouise wrote...

Since when does liking something mean not liking/wanting anything more added? :/

Think it through - you like it then you have everything you need on the disk.

The DLC would be for those who were hugely let down with the ending. You like what you have, great, stick with it. Those that aren't get the DLC. Theoretically this would make all the fans happy, provided the DLC fix they gave us addressed the points that were raised (lack of choice, previous choices mattering, sticking to series themes and lore, logic etc).

Does that make sense?

[rachellouise]

Leem_0001 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

Since when does liking something mean not liking/wanting anything more added? :/

Think it through - you like it then you have everything you need on the disk.

The DLC would be for those who were hugely let down with the ending. You like what you have, great, stick with it. Those that aren't get the DLC. Theoretically this would make all the fans happy, provided the DLC fix they gave us addressed the points that were raised (lack of choice, previous choices mattering, sticking to series themes and lore, logic etc).

Does that make sense?

Obviously what I said did not make sense to you.

How does liking the ending mean I would not want more added? They are not the same thing.

[sp0ck 06]

Harorrd wrote...

The People who like the ending are to stupid to comprehend what actually happen, or they have no ethical seance of right and wrong.

*sigh*  

[GiarcYekrub]

I'm sure some "fans" want complete biographies of Shepards great great grankids

[rachellouise]

Harorrd wrote...

The People who like the ending are to stupid to comprehend what actually happen, or they have no ethical seance of right and wrong.

I'm going to hold an ethical seance tonight. Trollolol 

[Leem_0001]

[quote]GiarcYekrub wrote...

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...

[quote]GiarcYekrub wrote...

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Yeah, sorry, your 3 little points there - they don't make a lot of sense.

You can find them on here or on the web, but prior to release Bioware promised (through intereviews and blogs etc, you can find every one of them for yourself):
* That the choices we made in the previous 2 games would effect the endings of ME3 in drastically different ways.
* We were promised 16 different endings.
* We were promised it would not simply be an A,B,C ending (red, blue, green anyone?)
* We were promised they would not pull a Lost and leave us with more questions than answers.

So that is point 1 - broken promises.
[/quote]
I disagree, I've not seen a single quote that "previous 2 games would effect the endings of ME3" I've seen lots of quotes that the choice affect the journey, colour the experience. Which it does. Even the rachni quote was something along the lines of "The Rachni presents on earth will have a major impact" and that is true as they are there under reaper control regardless of your choice. Apparently there are 16 different endings depending on your EMS so its not just ABC, apparently earth gets destroyed in low ems scenarios and synthsis is unavailable

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Next up, for a game developer who values story telling above all else, they have broken basic story telling rules by introuducing a new major antagonist (Starchild) in the last 10 minutes of the series. There is a reason this is a basic rule of story telling, it is jarring, and takes the reader/gamer out of the experience.. Read any, ANY, book on the craft of storytelling - I challange you to do that. You will see I am right.

So point 2 - poor storytelling.
[/quote]
Thats rubbish, its used all the time, and also used in ME1 with Vigil, look at Assains Creed 2 occurance in a popular video game series that suposidly values story. It was a mechanism to present the player infomation
1.Reaper motives
2.Crucible controls

Lets also remeber this only the last 10 minutes of shepards story not the series

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Next they used the same endings pretty much and just swapped the colour of the explosions. How can you be okay with this? All three games were building to this point and this is the closure we got, a colour pallet swap?
Point 3 - lazy ending
[/quote]
The colour doesn't matter its the meaning behind it, the choice and the end of the reaper war which I thought adequately conveyed
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Then there is the broken lore - Arrival states that if a Relay is destroyed,
[/quote]
When hit by an asteroid...
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Also, why does Shep blindly accept this Starchilds logic? He has a track history of questioning everything and not being bullied into things, no matter how desperate things seem.
[/quote]
My Sheppard questioned it, but seriously Shepard isn't in any bargaining position and is under direct orders of hacket to fire the crucible under any circumstances, Shepard can even question this order when given it earlier in the game.
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Also, why is Joker suddenly on the run, escaping from a mass relay blast, with my crew magically on board (they were in London with me). Did he bail? And consider the planet they crashed on - its not in our solar system, so he MUST have made a jump through the relay - but why did he go, pick up the squad, and jump through the relay? He had NO WAY OF KNOWING that they were going to blow. It makes no sense.
[/quote]
We view most of the ending from Shepards point of view, stuff happens we are not privvy to, TBH I was very relieved they survived Harbingers blast and get live hapily ever after
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
And if the cruicible was made by cycles before us, each adding their own bit to it, then why is a catalyst, that no one knows about, required to fire it? Shep was the first to meet Starchild, yet he claims to be the catalyst. But the other cycles that built this thing, why would they build a weapon that needed a catalyst that they didn't know about to fire? IT MAKES NO SENSE AND IS LAZY AND RUSHED.
Point 4 - logically incompetent (and does not follow its own lore).
[/quote]
Key point Soverign made on Virmire is that our technology, prothean technology and the cycles before us are guided in their technological development by the reapers and the Mass relays(a good reason to be rid IMO). Makes perfect sense just getting the idea it went over your head.
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
And another point is the theme of Mass Effect has always been unity in the face of diversity. The whole point of the series is to get everyone on the same side, which we pretty much achieve in ME3. EVEN AI in the Geth and EDI. AI are our friends. So the theme is that no matter our differences, we can all live together. This is such an important theme to have as well, especially in todays world. All of this was abandoned in the last 5 minutes and the theme was somehow changed to Organics VS AI -
[/quote]
No your missing the point again, that is the Reapers motives which is a separate issue to the game theme, in fact nothing typifies the theme more than the Synthsis option allowing the entire galaxy Synthetic and organic to unite together.
[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...
Destroy all AI including those who were helping you (EDI and GETH) or control them. Since when has control of any kind of life been a theme in ME? It hasn't.
Point 5 - Switches it's main theme in the last 5 minutes.
[/quote]
Destroy/Control IMO are both Renagade options, Destroy is basically genocide which you get the same choice in ME1 with the Rachni or Control which is effectively placing shackles on them and yes you can play the game as very anti AI shepard that agrees with the Illusive man for the most part 

So thats 5 points debunked

[/quote]

Nope, sorry, I disagree totally - you are way out with what you are saying. And debunked nothing. I'll  go through them:

Promises
There have been specific references, dating back to ME1, that all these choices would affect the endings of the game. And even taking into account the destroyed earth endings, we still do not have 16. Count them and see for yourself. So you debunked nothing. And what of Casey's comments of 'an A, B, C' ending. Clearly what we got with the coloured choices we were given. It is in direct contrast. You can say that its about what the endings imply etc etc, but given that they break from lore and themes (which I will get to) then the only questions posed are ones that relate to the plot holes. And the Rachni quote was that the choice you made in ME1 would greatly effect ME3. It doesnt as regardless of your choice in ME1, the Rachni are still around in ME3. Bioware have since issued a statement confirming this. Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, so you are being very selective with your memory there.

Story telling
No, it isn't rubbish at all, you are being dismissive over something you clearly don't understand. I haven't played the AC series after AC2, and I didn't rate the story so much, those game was more about the gameplay and visuals. Bioware MARKET themselves as storytellers. We have followed the story for 3 games and, in the last 10 minutes, we were introduced to a new antagonist, the overall antagonist, with no explination of what it was really. It was bad storytelling. Again, I ask you, dare you, read any book on good storytelling. The AC series was never on par with ME in this regard. And as for the Vigil thing - 2 points. We knew the ship Saren was on was controlling him before Vigil, so we knew it was a greater enemy, we just didn't know what. It wasn't sprang on us with 5 minutes to go. AND it was the first game of a trilogy, not the conclusion, where questions are supposed to be answered, not thrown up. And ME was always supposed to be a contained story - Shepard and the Reapers - with any others just taking place in the same universe. That was stated way back since after ME1 was released. Check it out for yourself.

And as for you being happy with thinking about the meaining behind the choices given - if you are happy with that fine. But it DOES go against the games themes (I'll get to that) and the fact they have used the same footage but changed the colour IS a cheap tactic. Seriously. The end to this phenominal series and we get a colour pallet swap? Didn't that stop happening after the Mortal Kombat 2? And the choices were not adequatley conveyed. The logistics of how they were carried out were non existant, and none of them fit with the themes.

Lazy ending
And again, what difference does the asteroid make? Its the energy within the relay that causes the solar systems destruction. When an asteroid hits something and causes great devistation it is because of the velocity etc. Fine, but the velocity of the asteroid against a relay without the dark energy within would not cause any reaction powerful enough to destroy a solar system. Its the dark energy, and as far as we were told by star child, all the endings unleashed the same. If a neuclear device is detonated by remote or by something crashing into it, its explosive power remains unchanged. Same thing.

And I'm sorry but Shep gives up and blindly picks one of the 3. He is under orders to fire it but now he knows what will happen when it is fired. When has Shep ever had a problem going against an order if he thinks it is the right thing to do?

Really, thats it, that is your debunk? Because Shep doesn't see it we shouldn't either? Just accept there is stuff we are not privv to? Jesus Christ man, that isn't even a debunk, its just you being happy when given something sub-par. If we only see anything from Shep's point of view, why did we even see Joker crash land at all? Clearly this point remains un-debunked.

Logically incompitent
But we were told that the other cycles developed this, nothing to do with the reapers. I ask again, who did they know about the catalyst? And, again, why would they create a weapon that needs one, but they have no idea what it is? The VI says that each cycle has added to it, added their own part to it, but why would they all included for this catalyst? THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS, so how could they incorporate it into their design??? It makes no sense, and while you can claim all you want it went over peoples heads, simple fact is that you are filling in gaps in logic and explanation with your own head canon (which makes no sense) and expecting it to be right. You are settling for sub par rubbish.

Themes
No, YOU are missing the point again. How can FORCING organics and synthestics be seen as the right thing to do? That is playing God, when has ME ever been about that? Answer - never. Synthesis removes all diversity and mashes everyone together as one abomination, regardless of if they wanted it. I say again, the theme has always been about unity inspite of diversity (even embracing diversity). This is saying that unity can only be achieved if diversity is removed. So it is NOT in keeping with the theme. It seems the main theme of the game went over your head and you totally missed the point.

So that is 5 points, very much still valid, and in no way even remotely debunked. I would say 'nice try though' but, honestly, it wasnt. [/quote]

Your just regurgitating the same old drivel, you say I'm being selctive with memory but fail to provide any actual quotes with sources to prove your claims.


You say its an ABC ending...:
Synthsis
Destroy Shep Lives
Destroy Shep Dies
Destroy Earth Devastated
Destroy Earth Destroyed, No choice
Destroy Earth Destroyed, with choice
Control  Earth Devastated
Control  Earth Devastated

Add to that the multiple combinations of squadmates in the crash scene and I think we have exceeded 16... in fact let widen our window of the ending to the whole Earth section and you have Geth/Quarians, Wrex giving speaches, and a goodbye to every character that was on your squad that is still alive.

Well I think thats 5 points that  remain well truely debunked

[/quote]

Same old drivel from yourself - avoiding the questions you can't answer, and debunking nothing of the relevant points that have been raised. Simply because you can't debunk them.

And why are we suddenly making the earth section as part of the ending? Where the hell did that come from? lol - good of you to move the goal posts. And are you really saying that those differences are altered in any meaningful way? The Shep lives is a couple of seconds breathing (which makes no sense, how the hell is he back in London?). All of these differences you are coming up with are tiny alteratinos to the same cut scenes. If you were promised drastically different endings based on your choices (Casey Hudons words) and are given the same cut scene with a few tiny things tweaked, are you really happy with that? If so then I suggest you could never understand why people aren't happy. People were rightly expecting drastically different outcomes based on their previous choices, not colour swaps and microseconds of difference in the cut scenes. That is what is known as being short changed.

Seriosuly, you have debunked nothing here, not a damn thing. Because you can't, you are unable to back up what you say with any logic.

We are never going to agree, or even see a middle ground, so let me ask you this - would you have a problem with Bioware releasing a DLC that fized the problems the anti enders had? That way you could keep the ending you have on the disk, and those that are unhappy get something emotinally and thematically satisfying to them, that they feel befits the series. Surely then, everyone is happy and we are all Bioware fans again?

[MattFini]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Your just regurgitating the same old drivel, you say I'm being selctive with memory but fail to provide any actual quotes with sources to prove your claims.


You say its an ABC ending...:
Synthsis
Destroy Shep Lives
Destroy Shep Dies
Destroy Earth Devastated
Destroy Earth Destroyed, No choice
Destroy Earth Destroyed, with choice
Control  Earth Devastated
Control  Earth Devastated

Add to that the multiple combinations of squadmates in the crash scene and I think we have exceeded 16... in fact let widen our window of the ending to the whole Earth section and you have Geth/Quarians, Wrex giving speaches, and a goodbye to every character that was on your squad that is still alive.

Well I think thats 5 points that  remain well truely debunked

Come on.  Those are all the same.  "Oh hey, Big Ben didn't explode in mine!  Awesome."

Yes, TECHNICALLY there are variations in the ending, but it remains a cheap, lazy and unacceptable finish to the series.  

Unless you're really satisfied by the fact that any combination of squadmates can pop out of the Normandy, I have to think you're trolling some.  

[Kushan101]

Ummmmm, most people I've seen who reply to a "I like the endings" usually say something along the lines of "Really? You're kidding! No way!" or "I'm glad for you! Wish I could have too ".

So.... yeah. If you want to interpret that as being called a National Socialist, than thats down to you.